Marin supervisors: Controversial pet project fund vital for community

Seeking to hush controversy over a pet project account they contend critics unfairly call a "slush fund," Marin supervisors gave the program a facelift Tuesday, tossing it to the county administrator while continuing to control the purse strings.

County Administrator Matthew Hymel's plan cuts the program's budget 14 percent by capping it at $300,000 a year, calls for grants between $1,000 and $10,000, increases accountability and shifts the focus from individual supervisors to his own office under a "countywide allocation" system administered by his staff.

Although a key recommendation stemming from a recent grand jury probe involved removing control of disbursements from supervisors entirely, Hymel's plan does not do so. The new program requires that grants be sponsored by a supervisor — and that "geographic equity" be a goal to ensure that each supervisorial district gets a fair share of the funds.

Hymel's facelift follows similar proposals by Supervisor Steve Kinsey and includes several suggestions pressed by the county civil grand jury.

The county board embraced the changes as recommended after several supervisors, backed by beneficiaries of grants, trumpeted the program so vigorously as a vital community service that some observers wondered why they were altering it all, much less trimming its budget.

Even Supervisor Kinsey, who last December called for reforms, noted the program enables officials "to recognize those critically important moments in civic life" in which a small helping hand from the county makes a big difference. "No matter what we do, it will be a source of criticism," Kinsey noted.

"The benefits to the community far outweigh the pain we will feel from the tomatoes and daggers," said Supervisor Katie Rice.

"This is a program I never thought was broken," added Supervisor Kate Sears, asserting, "these monies allow for the enrichment of our communities."

Supervisor Susan Adams talked at length of the many community programs, ranging from school gardens to flood control and open space acquisition, she has helped fund, and Supervisor Judy Arnold said transparency and funding guidelines urged by the administration were excellent ideas.

"A small amount of money can go a long way to help our communities," said San Anselmo City Councilman Jeff Kroot, noting his town has benefited from the program. "It is truly government working for the community," he added. "It's not a slush fund," added Kroot's colleague, Town Councilwoman Kay Coleman. "It's an investment."

Grant recipients from Sustainable Fairfax and the Novato Fourth of July Parade joined in a chorus of praise.

But Novato realty agent Toni Shroyer wasn't impressed. "The Board of Supervisors is not a nonprofit," she said. "Donate with your own personal savings."

Shroyer has announced plans to run for county supervisor in next year's elections.

Retired insurance executive Deke Welch of San Rafael, who often casts a wary eye at county spending, said Hymel had done a "good job of making the program appear to be more organized, more fair," and said it was "headed in the right direction."

Under the new procedure, allocations will be made to nonprofit agencies or "other government partners" three times a year, and any "unspent balances" will be returned to the county treasury. Previously, if an individual supervisor did not spend a $65,000 personal budget allocation, the money was rolled over for spending the next year, and funding was allowed to mount. The county board thus began this fiscal year with $900,000 to spend on pet projects as it pleased.

Although the administration plan incorporated a number of the 2013 grand jury's suggestions, several of the grand jury's strictest proposals were ignored, including severing disbursement control from the county board, and the panel's conclusion that no pet project money should be allocated if other departments are asked to cut their budgets. The jury also said grants should not be used for a recipient's ongoing operation expenses — and should not be made to the same organization in consecutive years.

Hymel's reform program is the latest twist in the saga of a perk that has prompted more than a decade of controversy over the propriety of officials spending as they please.

Several years ago, supervisors cut the annual budget of the 20-year-old program from $550,000 to $350,000.

The fund first drew the ire of the county grand jury a decade ago, with jurors saying it nurtured political favor. No comparable county in the state provides its supervisors with a similar personal spending account.